Hacker News Reader

Comment by benrutter | Hacker News Reader

Really interesting and well researched read. The main take away seems to be that Britain has seen a lack of state funded infrastructure development and it's paying the price for this, especially in the energy sector.

I'm obviously oversimplifying, but I think that's an ok rough summary. I think it's well argued and evidenced in the article, but I'm interested in this question: why isn't the US stagnating?

My understanding is that it has had a similarly low infrastructue development, but conversely is doing well economically. What's the deal?

View on HN

The US has a huge internal market, with free interstate trade and no need for localization.

The US has accumulated colossal scientific and R&D resources, which regularly produce industrial breakthroughs. Lower taxes help, too. (Lower taxes is what a country can afford for general benefit, not a sloppy pro-rich policy.)

But most importantly, USD is effectively the world's reserve currency, so the US can literally print money, and much of the rest of the world would gladly take it; it's like gold, only buttressed by the US's economic and military might.

The UK has none of these advantages. The British Empire had some of these, but it's gone. Another large factor is that the US emerged from WWII relatively unscathed, while Britain was badly hit, and could not grow as fast.

(Edit: typos.)

Another factor is that Quantitative Easing (QE) kind of works for the US, but not for the UK: https://youtube.com/watch?v=goA9kkaDfTE / https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/goA9kkaDfTE

That's a consequence of being world's reserve currency

The UK emerged from WWII massively indebted to the US. That's not entirely unrelated to the UK's position post-war.

That security guarantee to Poland turned out quite expensive in the end.

You know, if you put it this way, it's really a miracle that britain as an independent country still exists at all, that it's not been conquered from the continent since 1066, and that has been in no small part thanks to a british foreign policy of making sure that no country in europe becomes so dominant that they might take on britain, a foreign policy which included that security guarantee to Poland.

Which was the type of unforced error that almost brought together the Molotovian facist-communist tagteam that almost destroyed the entire world.

And Poland got occupied anyway. Truly Metternich-level stuff.

I don't think "state funded" is the important part to take away from the piece, it's a shortage of infrastructure in general, both state and private, in part due to incredibly restrictive rules. These days you can easily trap a planned piece of infrastructure in court cases for years for largely spurious reasons.

> incredibly restrictive rules.

Like what?

Are you referring to the self-regulation at Grenfell Tower?

It was regulations that made the cladding be installed in the first place, I thought?

Poor quality of regulation allows sociopath installer who well knows the risk to use lowest cost materials to line their pockets.

Yes, or no regulation at all an unsafe cladding is not installed.

OP is more likely to be referring to e.g. Green Belt planning restrictions.

The thames tunnel costing as much in planning as Norway spent actually building the longest tunnel in the world. Construction projects are so fraught with regulatory burden that most of these costs are going to legal fees. It's not that they're not spending money. It's that public infrastructure is a money pit of legal fees

Building a tunnel through a stable and self supporting granite mountain is a bit different from building one under a river that is on top of a slab of clay and sand so I don't think the two projects are directly comparable.

And the regulations are really not that different here in Norway. What is different is that there is a less adversarial society. We are a little more inclined to thrash out the problems in discussion rather than litigation.

But there are plenty of infrastructure projects here that take longer and cause more disruption than they should. For instance the upgrade to the E18 between Oslo and Drammen on which 17 billion kroner (1.7 billion USD) has already been spent without getting halfway and the southern half of the project has been scrapped because of the cost of buying out the people who live in the way of the new route.

https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/ny-nasjonal-transportplan-...

The main issue in the UK is the ridiculous circle of environmental impact assessments, and statutory consultees.

The list of organisations that can by law be required to be consulted on any development is insane: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/consultation-and-pre-decision-ma...

Environental impact assessments now run to millions of pages. Every big infra planning application tries to anticipate any possible complaint, and the whole cost balloons.

I give them the benefit of the doubt. They are of the opinion its hard to get anything built because of regulations at the planning stage.

Difficult to see anybody but piggy sticks trying to get away with building with highly flammable materials.

It’s not so much restrictive rules, as it is a planning system that prioritises local concerns, regardless of how minor, or incorrect, over any kind of national priority.

Our planning system is literally designed to maximally empower NIMBYism. There are no well defined planning rules, or zoning, or planning process. Every council develops their own planning policy, and broadly has the power to block any project. The result is building anything requires millions of pounds, and years of effort, to work through a councils arbitrary, and ever changing planning rules, with no guarantee of any kind of success.

Most of the rest of the world operates some kind of permitted development zoning policy, where planning policy tends to provide clear rules around what can always be built in a specific area. So it possible to start a development process knowing that certain aspects of your project must be approved, as long as you follow the rules. Unlike the UK where you project might be approved if you managed to somehow follow all the undocumented, arbitrary, and changing local rules.

Consequences are quite simple, only projects that are absolutely guaranteed to return large profits if successful are built. And for those projects there’s very little incentive for high quality building, because there’s no competition in the area, and costs of getting permission are so high, that a developers unique selling point is their ability to get permission, not their ability to actually build well.

With regards to Grenfell, that’s the consequence of have shambolic building regulations (I.e. regulations on the quantity and safety of buildings), and a construction industry that can only make money by cutting corners, because the supply of actual work is so low.

While not denying in any way that this sort of thing is a real problem, I think you're overstating differences between the UK and "the rest of the world".

Although zoning in the USA does work to a degree as you say ("must be approved if you ..."), in reality lots of projects that seem as if they ought to be a sure thing for approval face years of process-based objections from local groups, leading to them never being built at all, or having to be significantly revised due to changes demanded or created by circumstances shifting.

The UKs planning system is pretty much unique. Almost no other country in the world operates a planning system where every local authority basically gets to make up their own rules around planning, and where it’s practically impossible for national government to enforce simple things like minimum house building quotas.

If you want to understand why building infrastructure in the UK is so difficult, then you need to look no further than our planning system. It has uniquely managed to completely strangle infrastructure building. Sure NIBYism exists in the U.S., and there’s lots of planning red tape, and plenty of very poorly considered planning rules (such as single use zoning, and a strange obsession with single family homes). But in comparison to the UK, it’s practically pleasant to work with.

Of course it helps that the U.S. has a crap ton of spare land just handing around. Much easier to build a new shopping mall, highway or suburb on a completely empty plot with no neighbours in sight. But in the UK you, you can’t swing a cat without hitting an existing building, or actively worked farm.

Bad faith reply

Having recently visited the US, the infrastructure there (at least in the parts of California I visited) is noticeably worse than in Europe (including the UK). So I don't think it can just be about infrastructure.

US is energy independent and is desirable place for middle and higher class specialist. Compared to overtaxed and energy starved England which live from legacy sectors and cheap immigration workers and is not desirable for anyone not working in finances.

> live from legacy sectors

Finance is a legacy sector now?

> energy starved

Importing energy while ramping up your own production with wind and tidal, and importantly, nuclear, is not "starved". Is there a lack of energy in the UK? Blackouts like the ones in Texas?

No blackouts, but it's now very expensive. The system management is quite good but the cost is a serious political issue.

(It's also an oddity that the Conservative government presided over a lot of green transition in the energy sector, but can't take credit for it because of their base)

Man blackout != energy starved, you can have blackouts cause your infrastructure is attacked or just random natural disaster, look at energy prices compare it to China or even US not even speaking about oil rich countries.

Finance in UK is indeed legacy it is mostly big old banks there is still a bit of fintech and ofc. head funds, but UK is bleeding both talent and market share to CN and US. Not even speaking about tech salaries 10 years ago London was one of the top paying places for finance tech, now it is (ofc.) USA and CN (especially with cost of living).

> Finance in UK is indeed legacy it is mostly big old banks there is still a bit of fintech

Many fintech b2c innovators come from the UK. Revolut and Monzo provide features with a UX and API that US banks couldn't even dream of.

> Man blackout != energy starved, you can have blackouts cause your infrastructure is attacked or just random natural disaster, look at energy prices compare it to China or even US not even speaking about oil rich countries.

Yes you can, but that's not why Texas has blackouts. The UK has expensive electricity, imports a lot, but on what planet is it "energy starved"?

I mean isn't UK starving? it can't produce enough energy, it cost is extremely high to produce anything and it can't get proper industrial/manufacture power base cause of that? (and a lot of other stupid reasons)

> I mean isn't UK starving

No?

No? The UK's industrial base is comparable to France, and about 9th-10th worldwide. On what planet is that "starving"?

Since the crisis of 2008 the USA has had several trillion dollars in stimulus spending. Very roughly speaking, Europe pursued policies of austerity, whereas the USA followed a more Keynesian route of big spending. On this matter, the Keynesians have been vindicated. In 2007 the GDP of the EU was slightly larger than the USA, but now it has fallen far behind: $16 trillion ($18 trillion if it still had the UK) versus $25 trillion for the USA. And the most important policy difference since 2008 has been large stimulus spending in the USA, versus relative austerity in Europe. More recently, President Biden was able to push through some big infrastructure bills, which should power the USA through the 2020s. (There are some qualifiers to be added about weaknesses in the USA system of funding and allowing construction, in particular the aggressive system of "substantive due process" that allows for any project to be stalled by lawsuits, but despite that, the USA has done better than Europe.)

Most of the difference in GDP was because Dollar was a lot cheaper compared to Euro pre Recession. Also EU just stagnate from 1990 until now it is yearly losing global share of GDP.

"Most of the difference in GDP was because Dollar was a lot cheaper compared to Euro pre Recession."

Yes, but why? There was a theory that massive stimulus spending would weaken the dollar because of the additional debt, but instead, the opposite happened. The USA did more stimulus spending and the dollar became stronger. Many people were surprised by this. Those people need to revisit their initial assumptions.

The US has a more robust system for supplying infrastructure through private investment - including in the energy sector.

You say that but the UK has not experienced the kind of energy disruptions that, for example, the Texans have since the 1970s.

Let’s also not forget the railroad problems you face. You’re probably the only country that makes Britain look good for its rail infrastructure.

Having driven on both American roads and British roads, I’d say UK rural roads are to a much higher standard. However that I can give America a pass on that particular issue because the vast distances in some rural parts does change the problem somewhat. But it is another example of how private investment doesn’t reach all parts of the US infrastructure.

Internet access in rural communities is much better in the UK.

Mains water quality is to a higher standard and available to more rural communities.

And let’s not even get started on the sorry state of US healthcare. The NHS might have its problems but at least it’s not leaving people choosing between medical treatments and bankruptcy.

The problem is, whenever the US government tries to step in to improve things, the ultra conservatives and libertarians then compare those policies to communism. Which is absurd.

> You say that but the UK has not experienced the kind of energy disruptions that, for example, the Texans have since the 1970s.

The energy disruptions the UK had in the 70s were how Thatcher came into power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week

The article you link to explains that the Three Day Week led to the collapse of the Conservative gov in 74, and while Thatcher became leader, she did not come into power until 79. If the power outages led to anything, it was to a Labour gov.

(this is unrelated to the correct statement that there were widespread outages throughout the 70s)

Those "disruptions" occured because of political action.

The disruptions in Texas are because their power grid and associated infrastructure is shite.

Entirely different things.

England is a small country, smaller than the US state of Georgia. It's much easier to maintain way shorter roads with its much higher population density. Nonetheless, the rural roads in the US are generally of good to excellent quality.

> England is a small country, smaller than the US state of Georgia. It's much easier to maintain way shorter roads with its much higher population density.

A point I made in my post.

>Let’s also not forget the railroad problems you face. You’re probably the only country that makes Britain look good for its rail infrastructure.

You give the US a pass on roads due to great distances, but not on rail? Rail is even more expensive than roads.

On the subject of roads, it is important to remember that US roads vary greatly in quality based on geography, weather, and economic conditions. Every state gets some federal money and fuel taxes to pay for roads.

>Internet access in rural communities is much better in the UK.

The US had plans to subsidize Starlink for rural communities but the current administration interfered with it for petty political reasons. Again with this, the distances involved matter a lot.

>And let’s not even get started on the sorry state of US healthcare. The NHS might have its problems but at least it’s not leaving people choosing between medical treatments and bankruptcy.

NHS has problems like, you might not get treatment in a timely manner despite the high taxes you pay for that service. The US has issues with cost. We pay more than practically any other country including on medication. I think that is due to corruption. The issue is not that the state does not pay for it. It often does end up paying exorbitant prices for people without insurance, or on government benefits, to be treated. A majority of elderly people in the US are collecting government benefits and healthcare. It's not much but it does cover a significant amount of stuff.

>The problem is, whenever the US government tries to step in to improve things, the ultra conservatives and libertarians then compare those policies to communism. Which is absurd.

It is true that government can invest in worthwhile things sometimes, but when the government messes things up on a regular basis then you instinctively reject whatever it proposes. Neither the UK nor the US can afford our existing social programs. Yet here you are proposing that we here in the US spend even more so we can be like the UK. No thanks, we have enough problems as it is without higher taxes and more government scams.

> the current administration interfered with it for petty political reasons

I'm not entirely sure that doubts about handing fistfuls of cash to a corporation headed by an increasingly politically extreme CEO whose 2nd generation satellites are leaking so much radio energy that radio astronomy in that band of the spectrum looks doomed is "petty".

The persecution of Elon Musk is entirely political, and he is not "extreme" just for disagreeing with the entire media/corporate/state establishment and supporting basic human rights like freedom of expression as enshrined in the FIRST Amendment of the US Constitution. The persecution has nothing to do with the costs or merits of his products, which vary but are generally the best in class or very competitive. He was the darling of the libs until he dared to point out the insanity of their recent policies.

If you watch the video, you'll see they replaced Starlink with a solution that cost 10x as much. I'm sure whatever minor inconvenience comes to those scientists can be fixed somehow. We have far bigger things to worry about in any case.

> I'm sure whatever minor inconvenience comes to those scientists can be fixed somehow.

\1. It's not a "minor inconvenience" at all.

\2. Problem started with Starlink 1.0. The fix was Musk promising better shielding and attention to leaks in Version 2.0 and to turn off Starllink sats over Murchison Radio Quiet Area etc.

\3. Starlink V2.0 has 30x more noise (Musk lied | didn't deliver) and remains noisy over quiet areas (Musk lied | didn't deliver).

> The persecution of Elon Musk is entirely political

It's more due to Musk lying and not delivering.

>It's not a "minor inconvenience" at all.

What's your solution? This kind of satellite system is going to get built and improved over time regardless of what you think of it.

>It's more due to Musk lying and not delivering.

No, it's not. I think you know it too. Biden and a bunch of EU politicians have literally threatened Elon over Twitter, as recently as last month. Everyone was cool with his hype game until they cashed out and/or discovered that Elon has the views of a liberal from about 2010.

Let's look at Elon's accomplishments objectively. He oversaw a new and inexpensive reusable rocket program, cutting-edge electric cars which libs begged for, solar systems for houses, and satellite internet. Not to mention his original online payment system in the early days. All of those projects are very competitive and widely used. Did he promise more? Sure, he did. But he also delivered more than any of the naysayers. I have some sympathy for a man trying to do what was considered impossible, like developing autonomous taxis.

The 2nd generation of starlink satellites is worse than the first one: they leak radio spectrum energy at a massively higher level than the 1st generation.

Why have sympathy for anyone trying to do something stupid? Why do we need autonomous taxis? What problem is this solving, other than helping the already richer get a bit richer?

IMO the Starlink interference problem is being overblown to spite Elon for political reasons. In any case, satellites have long existed and other countries are going to build their own version of Starlink with the same problems. If they don't have the same problems then presumably Starlink will learn from them. There are other satellites made to observe stuff from space, and maybe the new SpaceX rockets will facilitate radioastronomy stations built on the dark side of the moon (if that's even important enough to build).

I actually don't want autonomous taxis or autonomous vehicles in general but some people do. When new technology is developed, usually most people experience benefits. It makes sense for some of the spoils to go to investors. Stop hating on people who make money. They are what funds everyone's pensions after all.

> IMO the Starlink interference problem is being overblown to spite Elon for political reasons.

That's your opinion. It's wrong.

There is a list of papers as long as an arm going back to the start of Starlink that measure the noise spectrum and point out exactly why it's a real problem for pre existing programs that have had billions invested in new science programs.

There are proposed work arounds which have been ignored.

>That's your opinion. It's wrong.

Unless you are actively working on this issue I will consider your opinion no more valid than mine. There may be papers about the issue but that does not in itself prove how bad the issue is. I don't have time to find and read "a list of papers as long as an arm" anyway and I would bet good money that you didn't read them either.

>There are proposed work arounds which have been ignored.

Do you know if there is a legitimate technical reason why those might not have been implemented? Will any of those billions going to radio astronomy go toward reengineering the technical marvel that is Starlink? Doesn't the FCC inspect and approve all of our privately-owned satellites?

I'm not an astronomer or a rocket scientist but it seems to me that emitting continuous "noise" aka a radio signal is fundamental to the operation of satellite internet on such a scale. You don't have to respond with another pompous "Nah uh" because I don't care anymore.

> Stop hating on people who make money. They are what funds everyone's pensions after all.

I was the 2nd employee at Amazon. It's not like I hate people who make money. And people making money is not what funds everyone's pensions, other than in some glib 8th grade sort of way.

Do feel free to continue on with your defense of incredibly rich people who don't actually give a damn about any of the things you do and do not need your assistance.

>> It's not a "minor inconvenience" at all.

> What's your solution? This kind of satellite system is going to get built and improved over time regardless of what you think of it.

So you've reversed your " opinion " and tacitly admitted it's more than a a minor inconvenience then?

As I outlined above the solution proposed was that the Ver 2.0 sats be better shielded and set to turn off over Radio Quiet Zones such as the Murchison as discussed and agreed to when this was raised some years back.

>> It's more due to Musk lying and not delivering.

> No, it's not.

Yes. It is. At least so far as the radio telescope community and this Starlink issue is concerned. He made promises and didn't keep them.

> Biden and a bunch of EU politicians ...

Has nothing to do with Starlink noise.

> Let's look at Elon's accomplishments objectively.

Sure. He promised to fix Starlink noise. He did not. He delivered a Ver 2.0 that's noisier than the the first.

He promised Full Self Driving cars "next year" for a decade. Still hasn't happened.

>So you've reversed your " opinion " and tacitly admitted it's more than a a minor inconvenience then?

No I didn't. I heard about some noise a long time ago and it did not sound like a devastating development. I am merely putting forward a conditional argument: If the noise is a problem, then the problem will likely affect other satellites which are already being built. In any case I expect the problem to be solved.

>Yes. It is. At least so far as the radio telescope community and this Starlink issue is concerned. He made promises and didn't keep them.

I was not aware of these promises. Without context I cannot say whether he had a legitimate reason to not implement that proposed solution. Can you at least admit there might be a technical reason for it to not be done?

>he promised[...]

He does tend to promise more than he delivers but nobody has delivered better satellite internet, EVs, or autonomous driving to the public. Your gripes are extremely uncharitable.

Again I must point out that Elon's habit of overhyping things was well-tolerated by all for years, until he revealed views slightly to the right of the most extreme leftists and questioned their pet issues. Then the media and all liberals acted like he's the devil. I have a coworker who has been affected by this propaganda campaign. He is extremely environmentally conscious, yet refuses to buy anything from an Elon company. He will not buy a Tesla despite the fact they are practically the best and most proven EVs on the market. Instead he bought a Leaf or something, which is objectively worse than a Tesla. This mentality is totally irrational and I would say un-American. But this bad attitude is common, unfortunately.

"Nobody has delivered better ...." is not a reason to be less negative towards Musk. Because somebody manages to do a quality-but-fundamentally-problematic job on satellite internet, a generally OK but quality-plagued job on EVs and a basically useless job on autonomous driving that nobody wanted does not mean they are exempt from criticism or griping.

It is extremely American to use commerce for political ends.

Boycotting people with political views you find problematic is as American as apple pie (and actually, maybe more so). The right and the left do it, and have done for ages.

His hype was well-tolerated by the people you read and listen to, perhaps, but in the stuff I read he's been criticized for more than a decade for his empty bullshit. Tesla also lots of issues with their cars, more than most other EV makes, but it is true that they do have more time in the market and have done some cool stuff.

If you want to argue about distances then let’s talk about Europe as a wider entity rather than just one country. And Europe still comes out on top for quality of infrastructure.

The problem with the NHS is due to the amount of budget cuts from the Tory government.

The problem with the American health system is the exact opposite, it costs too much because private entities are greedy. Government intervention would be more legislative than financial.

Everything costs more in the US except for imported stuff. It's not because of corporate greed. It's because labor costs so much here, primarily.

>The problem with the NHS is due to the amount of budget cuts from the Tory government.

I don't know all about UK politics but I know that the current social programs and government spending are unaffordable. The US and other Western countries can't afford it either. The problem is not that spending is not enough, the problem is that our countries are not competitive or productive enough on the world stage for this exorbitant spending.

You can consider Europe all together but it is still a smaller and denser area than the US as a whole. You need to look at places with similar population densities (and perhaps geography) to have an accurate comparison.

The UK ran the NHS as a high quality first tier health service for 50 years or more, during times when the UK was still making debt repayments to the US to cover costs from WWII.

Once Thatcherite neoliberalism (specifically: market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.) took hold and wealth transfer from the many to the few became increasingly common the Conservative contributions to the NHS steadily decreased and eroded the service.

"Free trade" globalism aka outsourcing everything is indeed self-destructive. Liberals are just as much to blame as conservatives when it comes to not protecting our national interests. They can say whatever works, but if they get out of line with the globalist establishment then they are systematically pushed out by big money interests.

At this point, cutting spending is the right move in general. But that isn't going to happen because it's too unpopular. And whether we do cut spending or not, hard times are ahead.

> Everything costs more in the US except for imported stuff. It's not because of corporate greed. It's because labor costs so much here, primarily.

Your first sentence isn’t true and your conclusion isn’t true either. Then there’s the issue that American healthcare is massively disproportionally more expensive than the rest of the world. So even if your first two points were correct, they still don’t account for your cost of healthcare.

> I don't know all about UK politics but I know that the current social programs and government spending are unaffordable. The US and other Western countries can't afford it either.

The problem isn’t that they’re unaffordable. The problem is that people don’t want to pay for it. Or more specifically, people in the higher tax bands don’t want to because they view public services as an expense (which for them it is, because they’ll often be using private services instead). But this is another example of the self sabotage I was talking about in my earlier comment.

> You can consider Europe all together but it is still a smaller and denser area than the US as a whole. You need to look at places with similar population densities (and perhaps geography) to have an accurate comparison.

To be honest it doesn’t matter how accurate the comparison, you’re just going to argue that the free market fixes everything. Because that’s exactly what you’ve been brainwashed to believe. Capitalism is Americas #1 religion after all.

To be fair, I don’t think public services are the answer to everything either. There does need to be a balance between government oversight and spend; and of leaning into the private sector. The UK hasn’t found that right balance either. ButAmerica is waaaay of the mark and it’s destroying your country from the inside.

>Your first sentence isn’t true and your conclusion isn’t true either. Then there’s the issue that American healthcare is massively disproportionally more expensive than the rest of the world. So even if your first two points were correct, they still don’t account for your cost of healthcare.

My first two points are correct but if you don't agree we can stop talking because I am not gonna sit here and prove the obvious to you. I can't say we pay more for everything on average than literally anywhere else, but we do pay more on average for everything than most other places. As for why our healthcare is expensive, yes some of it is due to regulations and lack of competition. But the simple fact that it costs so much to live well in the US means that people must be willing to pay way more than elsewhere. That translates into higher pay for doctors. If you can pay $8 for a coffee then paying a couple hundred for a doctor's visit is not out of the question. If you can pay $50k for a basic boring car then paying $50k for a life-saving surgery is not unreasonable.

>The problem isn’t that they’re unaffordable. The problem is that people don’t want to pay for it. Or more specifically, people in the higher tax bands don’t want to because they view public services as an expense (which for them it is, because they’ll often be using private services instead). But this is another example of the self sabotage I was talking about in my earlier comment.

No it's not the fault of the rich that we can't afford it. Privately held wealth in the US is only about $130 trillion. Meanwhile there was $210 trillion of unfunded liabilities in the current system: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/10/10/your-pen... as of 2017! So even seizing everything from everybody would not solve our problems. It would also destroy our quality of life, make the best and brightest (and richest) people run away, etc. You need to do some rudimentary research before trying to tell people stupid shit like they can enslave the rich to get free stuff.

>To be honest it doesn’t matter how accurate the comparison, you’re just going to argue that the free market fixes everything. Because that’s exactly what you’ve been brainwashed to believe. Capitalism is Americas #1 religion after all.

You're assuming an awful lot here. I haven't been "brainwashed" any more than you have. I just know that lots of things the government does are scams. Free markets do require some regulation to prevent certain breakdown cases involving unfair competition. But letting the government do things instead with no competition won't be an improvement. America is #1 in many things but budgeting and protecting our own interests aren't among those things.

The US has one of the largest freight rail networks in the world. We don't have as big of a passenger rail investment because nobody would ride most of it

Has it occurred to you that nobody rides passenger rail in the US because there’s zero investment in passenger rail, and as a consequence the U.S. has managed to build a rail system that more difficult to use that flights, and somehow still slower than cars.

I can’t think of anywhere else in the developed world where the train system is the slowest form of motorised transport around.

People ride passenger rail where it makes sense. The acela line being a good example. But if they built a high speed rail between Texas and Ohio, nobody would ride that, because flying would still be faster. We could build some HSR between major cities in Texas, Florida, California, and the Northeast corridor, but it would account for a handful of straight railways. There are major problems with building these (California is several billion over budget on their high speed rail and I don't think they've even started building), so the criticism of US overregulation is valid, but the main reason we don't have as extensive of a passenger rail system is because it wouldn't be economically viable in a country as sparsely populated as the united states

Many areas of the USA have population densities entirely comparable with large parts of Europe. The upper-central midwest (eastern MN, WI, IL, IA) is a good example - it compares favorably to most of France or Germany.

This is another example of how it is almost always a mistake to use a unitary description of anything when it comes to the USA. Yes, certainly where I live (New Mexico), population density is extremely low and long-haul rail transportation likely makes little sense. But talk about that as if it applies to "the united states" is a category error.

It’s common to travel between European counties by rail instead of plane. In fact I’ve done this myself.

In the US southwest, it's not the distance, it's the very small numbers of people who are moving around that is the problem.

Sorry, I meant to reply to the person before you about how people chose to fly rather than go by rail.

Not to mention the other issue: even if it's easy to get into another city via rail, how do you get from the train station to your final destination? Very few cities have public transit anywhere close to NYC's. Of course flying has the same issue, but the airport has a car rental desk.

Or avoid that entirely by driving your own car.

This is another part of infrastructure Europe generally does better: inner city public transport.

There are some European cities that are still car dominated, however quiet a few are easier to navigate via public transport and some have even gone as far as entirely banning private cars from the city centre.

I remember these things called taxis. But I'm an old, and I think they've been replaced by something called "Ubers" and "Lyfts". But don't mind me ...

Which are expensive.

It's fairly common, but even in Europe, it's frequently cheaper to fly than to take a train, unfortunately. I would not point to Europe as a place that does passenger rail extremely well; that honor goes to Japan. Europe might be better than the US at it, but that's not saying much.

It’s an ironic comment to make, given the U.S. was literally built using railways. Passenger railways covered the entire U.S. long before highways ever did.

The only reason why passenger rail doesn’t exist today, is because the U.S. chose to stop investing in rail, and instead chose to only invest in car infrastructure. There’s was a huge period where auto manufacturers were buying up local rail and trams systems, for the sole purpose of running them into the ground, and forcing people into cars instead.

There’s absolutely no reason you can’t build high speed passenger rail today. High speed rail takes up less space than a highway, for far higher speeds and capacities. And building high speed rail using highway style construction in one of the most cost effective ways of building passenger rail (it’s how countries like France can build high speed rail at such low costs).

For some reason nobody thinks it’s silly to link up U.S. cities with highways, but for some reason, rail is too hard (despite being the faster, higher throughput, and more economical, form of transportation).

An important aspect is that the US is that its economies and regional cultures are diverse and dispersed. The US is simply too decentralized to stagnate effectively. It is not a monoculture in any practical sense which creates a system that can respond quickly to evolutionary pressure. Everything good and bad you hear about the US usually only applies to a subset of the country and often only a handful of cities.

There is a high degree of regional specialization in the US as a consequence. No matter what happens in the world, some part of the US is perfectly positioned to take advantage of that. Combine this with general American risk tolerance and business acumen, and you have a country that is unusually organically adaptive to changing global economies.

Its also that its really expensive. The reasons given are the cost of planning but I also suspect given all that has been exposed over the past 40 years that widespread corruption by governments in power is actually a big part of the ballooning costs.

A lack of infrastructure development combined with a population being artificially increased by high levels of immigration, which is applying downward pressure on wages while pushing property costs (the source of most of the UK's problems) ever higher.

A population increase of around 1% per year may not seem huge until you consider what 1% of the UK road network or 1% of the NHS actually looks like, and what it'd take to build infrastructure and expand services at that rate year upon year.

The reality of building infrastructure in the UK is HS2 - a 20+ year project to build a little over 100 miles of high speed railway (with future northern phases predictably cancelled), at a cost over over half a billion quid per mile - it'll likely put any government off attempting any significant infrastructure construction ever again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com